On the heels of two recent plaintiff verdicts, plaintiffs’ attorneys continue to put pressure on the manufacturers of talc-based powder products. The Missouri Judicial Circuit Court for St. Louis City continues to be ground zero for these cases and that court’s docket continues to grow. At the same time, the number of cases pending as part of the New Jersey talc powder multicounty litigation has grown to 175, and more cases continue to be filed in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Talc is a common product that can be found in a variety of products such as paint, wallboard, roofing materials and rubber. Its absorbent and astringent qualities made talc an important ingredient in body powders and cosmetics. However, plaintiffs across the country contend that products containing talc can cause ovarian cancer when regularly used by women in the genital area. Johnson & Johnson (J&J), the primary defendant in most of the pending talc-based powder exposure cases, has previously marketed its Shower to Shower talc for feminine hygiene with the catchy ad slogan “just a sprinkle a day keeps the odor away.”
J&J has argued that the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by established scientific evidence. However, some plaintiffs have alleged that as early as 1994, J&J knew that studies evaluating talcum powder use showed conclusively that the frequent use of talcum powder in the genital area poses a serious health risk of ovarian cancer. Evidence put forward in the St. Louis City trials, including the company’s own internal documents, have twice led juries to award punitive damages in excess of $50 million. Punitive damages are a form of compensation in excess of actual damages, awarded as a form of punishment in instances of malicious and willful conduct.
As far back as the 1970s, J&J was using cornstarch in some of its products—an indication that a safer alternative may have existed. Existence of this safer alternative may be one of the main reasons juries have chosen to punish J&J for its actions related to its talc-based products, not only finding in favor of plaintiffs, but opting to simultaneously “punish” J&J for its actions.
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the date of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.